ID hasn't made any predictions that are exclusive to "Design". Every claimed ID prediction is actually a postdiction of events that are attributable to natural evolutionary processes. Every. Last. One.

IDiots love to play at science. They got tired of having no peer reviewed science articles so they created their own bogus IDiot journal, Bio-Complexity, so they could claim peer review. They got tired of having no predictions so they made some simple observations and claimed they are predicted by ID. Most are of the form "ID predicts the sky will be blue so a blue sky supports ID" worthless stupidity.

The simple fact is ID can't make any testable predictions unless and until they define the capabilities and limitations of their "Designer". Of course they never will because their "Designer" is their omnipotent God who literally could produce anything.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Complex systems can't evolve: Behe 1996Of course, he's changed his mind and said that SOME complex system can't evolve. Of course, he's wrong.

More than two positive mutations in one gene are nearly impossible (also Behe). Failed. At least one example I know of shows that 4 clusters of positive mutations evolved in a single ribozyme in less than 72 hours.

If you will look very carefully, you will discover (as I have) that there is no mention of Junk DNA by any ID proponent until well after biologists have given evidence for it. Even further, they don't explain WHY ID predicts junk DNA... or no junk DNA.

Mutations cause organisms to degrade (many ID proponents). Total failure. It's trivial to show that many mutations are positive.

etc. etc. etc.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

their "Designer" is their omnipotent God who literally could produce anything.

Of course not.

Most people would say that part of God’s omnipotence is that he can “do anything.” But that’s not really true. It’s more precise to say that he has the power to do all things that power is capable of doing. Power can’t make an illogical statement logical; it can’t create, for example, a square circle. And while an omnipotent Creator can make beings who possess free will, he can’t do that while at the same time controlling their behavior. This would be a contradiction that “power” cannot overcome. In other words, God could prevent all wrongdoing from occurring, or even most of it, but he couldn’t do so without blocking or limiting or overriding our free will.

Furthermore, precisely the opposite of what evolution predicts, ID does. That is :

A vast amount of complex and specified information encoded in a biochemical language;A computer-like system of commands and codes that processes the information.Molecular machines and multi-machine systems.But where in our experience do things like language, complex and specified information, programming code, or machines come from? They have one and only one known source: intelligence.

Quote (Otangelo @ Nov. 15 2015,11:01)

their "Designer" is their omnipotent God who literally could produce anything.

Of course not.

Most people would say that part of God’s omnipotence is that he can “do anything.” But that’s not really true. It’s more precise to say that he has the power to do all things that power is capable of doing. Power can’t make an illogical statement logical; it can’t create, for example, a square circle. And while an omnipotent Creator can make beings who possess free will, he can’t do that while at the same time controlling their behavior. This would be a contradiction that “power” cannot overcome. In other words, God could prevent all wrongdoing from occurring, or even most of it, but he couldn’t do so without blocking or limiting or overriding our free will.

Furthermore, precisely the opposite of what evolution predicts, ID does. That is :

A vast amount of complex and specified information encoded in a biochemical language;A computer-like system of commands and codes that processes the information.Molecular machines and multi-machine systems.But where in our experience do things like language, complex and specified information, programming code, or machines come from? They have one and only one known source: intelligence.

If you will look very carefully, you will discover (as I have) that there is no mention of Junk DNA by any ID proponent until well after biologists have given evidence for it. Even further, they don't explain WHY ID predicts junk DNA... or no junk DNA.

Mutations cause organisms to degrade (many ID proponents). Total failure. It's trivial to show that many mutations are positive.

etc. etc. etc.

Well, was coded, complex specified information and interdependent , irreducible complex systems predicted by the ToE ? Or where are the transitional fossils prior the Cambrian explosion ? Or that genes and functional parts would be re-used in different unrelated organisms ? Where are the millions of intermediate forms that should be there ? Did it predict that DNA repair mechanisms would be found ? Or that adaptation to the environment, aka micro change, would be a built in mechanism in the genome ?

These findings are all in line with what we expect to find if a intelligent creator were in play.... and we did.

If you will look very carefully, you will discover (as I have) that there is no mention of Junk DNA by any ID proponent until well after biologists have given evidence for it. Even further, they don't explain WHY ID predicts junk DNA... or no junk DNA.

Mutations cause organisms to degrade (many ID proponents). Total failure. It's trivial to show that many mutations are positive.

etc. etc. etc.

Well, was coded, complex specified information and interdependent , irreducible complex systems predicted by the ToE ? Or where are the transitional fossils prior the Cambrian explosion ? Or that genes and functional parts would be re-used in different unrelated organisms ? Where are the millions of intermediate forms that should be there ? Did it predict that DNA repair mechanisms would be found ? Or that adaptation to the environment, aka micro change, would be a built in mechanism in the genome ?

These findings are all in line with what we expect to find if a intelligent creator were in play.... and we did.

Let me explain something to you. Meyer is a liar. If you think that Precambrian fossils don't exist then you are ignorant of reality. The only question becomes, "Are you willing to learn?"

I personally spent about 9 months digging into the issue you mention in response to writings by ID proponent Meyer. Do you know what I found? Not that he was wrong, but that he purposefully lied in his book about what science says on those subjects.

How do I know he lied? Because that is only possible explanation for having so many papers misrepresented to be the exact opposite of what they actually said.

Now, here's the question again. Are you willing to learn?

I can provide you with about 25,000 words and about 75 peer-reviewed research papers that show that there are plenty of Pre-cambrian fossils, that explains the origin of the body plans (which are pre-cambrian, the millions of intermediate forms that you think don't exist, and what evolution actually is.

Do you want them, will you read them, and will you admit that you are wrong afterwards?

Finally, I would like to point out that you are demanding information, very specific information, when you cannot respond in kind about intelligent design.

Tell us, in detail, what does ID predict about DNA repair enzymes? Why? What part of ID results in that prediction?

You tell us, in detail, where does information in the ID paradigm come from? What evidence do you have that such a source exists? (And, please say "the design". Because circular logic is so much fun to play with.)

So, the ball is in your court. If you are willing to learn, I will happily explain to you, in detail, where ID proponents have lied to you. Are you tough enough to handle it? And can you respond to the same level of detail about your own pet notions?

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Let me explain something to you. Meyer is a liar. If you think that Precambrian fossils don't exist then you are ignorant of reality. The only question becomes, "Are you willing to learn?"

I personally spent about 9 months digging into the issue you mention in response to writings by ID proponent Meyer. Do you know what I found? Not that he was wrong, but that he purposefully lied in his book about what science says on those subjects.

How do I know he lied? Because that is only possible explanation for having so many papers misrepresented to be the exact opposite of what they actually said.

Now, here's the question again. Are you willing to learn?

I can provide you with about 25,000 words and about 75 peer-reviewed research papers that show that there are plenty of Pre-cambrian fossils, that explains the origin of the body plans (which are pre-cambrian, the millions of intermediate forms that you think don't exist, and what evolution actually is.

Do you want them, will you read them, and will you admit that you are wrong afterwards?

I have read Meyer's book only partially. I know precambrian fossils exist. That is a non-issue. What does not exist, however, i repeat, are millions of intermediate fossils that should show a clear gradative increase of complexity in order to get to the cambrian fossils.

THESE DO NOT EXIST. Refute my claim, if you think i am wrong.

Example ? Show me the precursors of the Trilobite, and the trilobite eye.

Quote

Finally, I would like to point out that you are demanding information, very specific information, when you cannot respond in kind about intelligent design.

Tell us, in detail, what does ID predict about DNA repair enzymes? Why? What part of ID results in that prediction?

You tell us, in detail, where does information in the ID paradigm come from? What evidence do you have that such a source exists? (And, please say "the design". Because circular logic is so much fun to play with.)

Post-diction's, or adaptation of a theory, is common in science ==>> see the Big bang theory.

Truth being told, nobody really predicted DNA repair mechanisms.

The relevant question about them is : How are they best explained, through Design, or the ToE, or natural mechanisms ? ( since they had to emerge prior to life, since life depends on them, evolution is not even a viable option to explain their origin.

In my view, they are best explained through design.

I have a lengthy topic at my virtual library about the issue :

DNA repair mechanisms, designed with special care in order to provide integrity of DNA, and essential for living organisms of all domains.

Maintaining the genetic stability that an organism needs for its survival requires not only an extremely accurate mechanism for replicating DNA, but also mechanisms for repairing the many accidental lesions that occur continually in DNA.

DNA damage is an alteration in the chemical structure of DNA, such as a break in a strand of DNA, a base missing from the backbone of DNA, or a chemically changed base. Naturally occurring DNA damages arise more than 60,000 times per day per mammalian cell. DNA damage appears to be a fundamental problem for life. DNA damages are a major primary cause of cancer. DNA damages give rise to mutations and epimutations. The mutations, if not corrected, would be propagated throughout subsequent cell generations. Such a high rate of random changes in the DNA sequence would have disastrous consequences for an organism

Its evident that the repair mechanism is essential for the cell to survive. It could not have evolved after life arose, but must have come into existence before. The mechanism is highly complex and elaborated, as consequence, the design inference is justified and seems to be the best way to explain its existence.

Base excision repair (BER) involves a category of enzymes known as DNA-N-glycosylases.

One example of DNA's automatic error-correction utilities are enough to stagger the imagination. There are dozens of repair mechanisms to shield our genetic code from damage; one of them was portrayed in Nature in terms that should inspire awe.

How DNA repair proteins distinguish between the rare sites of damage and the vast expanse of normal DNA is poorly understood. Recognizing the mutagenic lesion 8-oxoguanine (oxoG) represents an especially formidable challenge, because this oxidized nucleobase differs by only two atoms from its normal counterpart, guanine (G). The X-ray structure of the trapped complex features a target G nucleobase extruded from the DNA helix but denied insertion into the lesion recognition pocket of the enzyme. Free energy difference calculations show that both attractive and repulsive interactions have an important role in the preferential binding of oxoG compared with G to the active site. The structure reveals a remarkably effective gate-keeping strategy for lesion discrimination and suggests a mechanism for oxoG insertion into the hOGG1 active site.

Of the four bases in DNA (C, G, A, and T) cytosine or C is always supposed to pair with guanine, G, and adenine, A, is always supposed to pair with thymine, T. The enzyme studied by Banerjee et al. in Nature is one of a host of molecular machines called BER glycosylases; this one is called human oxoG glycosylase repair enzyme (hOGG1), and it is specialized for finding a particular type of error: an oxidized G base (guanine). Oxidation damage can be caused by exposure to ionizing radiation (like sunburn) or free radicals roaming around in the cell nucleus. The normal G becomes oxoG, making it very slightly out of shape. There might be one in a million of these on a DNA strand. While it seems like a minor typo, it can actually cause the translation machinery to insert the wrong amino acid into a protein, with disastrous results, such as colorectal cancer. 12

The machine latches onto the DNA double helix and works its way down the strand, feeling every base on the way. As it proceeds, it kinks the DNA strand into a sharp angle. It is built to ignore the T and A bases, but whenever it feels a C, it knows there is supposed to be a G attached. The machine has precision contact points for C and G. When the C engages, the base paired to it is flipped up out of the helix into a slot inside the enzyme that is finely crafted to mate with a pure, clean G. If all is well, it flips the G back into the DNA helix and moves on. If the base is an oxoG, however, that base gets flipped into another slot further inside, where powerful forces yank the errant base out of the strand so that other machines can insert the correct one.

Now this is all wonderful stuff so far, but as with many things in living cells, the true wonder is in the details. The thermodynamic energy differences between G and oxoG are extremely slight – oxoG contains only one extra atom of oxygen – and yet this machine is able to discriminate between them to high levels of accuracy.

The author, David, says in the Nature article :

Structural biology: DNA search and rescue

DNA-repair enzymes amaze us with their ability to search through vast tracts of DNA to find subtle anomalies in the structure. The human repair enzyme 8-oxoguanine glycosylase (hOGG1) is particularly impressive in this regard because it efficiently removes 8-oxoguanine (oxoG), a damaged guanine (G) base containing an extra oxygen atom, and ignores undamaged bases.

Natural selection cannot act without accurate replication, yet the protein machinery for the level of accuracy required is itself built by the very genetic code it is designed to protect. Thats a catch22 situation. It would have been challenging enough to explain accurate transcription and translation alone by natural means, but as consequence of UV radiation, it would have quickly been destroyed through accumulation of errors. So accurate replication and proofreading are required for the origin of life. How on earth could proofreading enzymes emerge, especially with this degree of fidelity, when they depend on the very information that they are designed to protect? Think about it.... This is one more prima facie example of chicken and egg situation. What is the alternative explanation to design ? Proofreading DNA by chance ? And a complex suite of translation machinery without a designer?

I enjoy to learn about the wonder of these incredible mechanisms. If the apostle Paul could understand that creation demands a Creator as he wrote in Romans chapter one 18, how much more we today with all the revelations about cell biology and molecular machines?

Quote

So, the ball is in your court. If you are willing to learn, I will happily explain to you, in detail, where ID proponents have lied to you. Are you tough enough to handle it? And can you respond to the same level of detail about your own pet notions?

I am always keen to learn. It depends however, from who, and if i regard the information given as trust worthy, and the inferences drawn of the evidence compelling.

The same question goes to you. Are you willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is ? Even if it is towards the oposit direction that you wish ?

their "Designer" is their omnipotent God who literally could produce anything.

Of course not.

Then describe for us the powers and limitations of your Designer. Tell us what discoveries would falsify the claim "A Designer did it".

Quote

Furthermore, precisely the opposite of what evolution predicts, ID does. That is :

Why do those things fall out of your ID claims when you admit you have no idea how a Designer would do things? If we saw the exact opposite you'd claim the Designer did it too.

Quote

But where in our experience do things like language, complex and specified information, programming code, or machines come from? They have one and only one known source: intelligence.

Making analogies between human designed things and terms with naturally occurring objects isn't evidence for ID. Creationist FAIL.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

I have read Meyer's book only partially. I know precambrian fossils exist. That is a non-issue. What does not exist, however, i repeat, are millions of intermediate fossils that should show a clear gradative increase of complexity in order to get to the cambrian fossils.

THESE DO NOT EXIST. Refute my claim, if you think i am wrong.

Ah, here it comes. The demand for INFINITE DETAIL while providing exactly ZERO of his own.

Fossilization is extremely rare and gets even more rare the farther back in time you go. Why do you IDiots think we should have a complete fossil record for events and creatures that existed around a billion years ago?

Quote

The relevant question about them is : How are they best explained, through Design, or the ToE, or natural mechanisms ? ( since they had to emerge prior to life, since life depends on them, evolution is not even a viable option to explain their origin.

In my view, they are best explained through design.

The usual argument from personal incredulity. "Gee, this is so complex I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore it must be designed". Before you bore us even more do you have anything not based on your own ignorance or personal incredulity? Any positive evidence for ID at all?

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

The total lack of any kind of experimental evidence leading even to re-creation of life; not to mention spontaneous emergence of life… is the most humiliating embracement to the evolutionists and the whole so-called “scientific establishment” around it…

One good start would be to be able to come up with a highly likely scenario of abiogenesis....

Quote

Why do those things fall out of your ID claims when you admit you have no idea how a Designer would do things? If we saw the exact opposite you'd claim the Designer did it too.

Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition.

A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter.

Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..."God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse.

Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence.

In genesis it says God spoke and things came into existence. God is a potent cause with power ( energy ) and his spoken word indicates information. Because we do not understand and in a detailled manner how he created the physical universe, and life, does not mean God does not understand or can't. Mystery to us is not mystery to God, but we do know that God is not limited to His spiritual realm, as he shown with his becoming of flesh in Jesus Christ.

Quote

Making analogies between human designed things and terms with naturally occurring objects isn't evidence for ID. Creationist FAIL.

I am always keen to learn. It depends however, from who, and if i regard the information given as trust worthy, and the inferences drawn of the evidence compelling.

The same question goes to you. Are you willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is ? Even if it is towards the oposit direction that you wish ?

Define a trustworthy source? Do you consider Nature trustworthy? You must since you used it.

Let me ask you a question. Name one ancestor in the maternal line from between 60 and 100 generation prior to yourself. If you can't, then how do you know you are human?

I guess we can be happy that you didn't cut and paste the entire FORUM POST. Tell, us, what is the nature article that is referred to in that post? Have you read it? Or is "Admin" a trustworthy source? If so, why?

Please explain, in your own words, how this article supports an ID inference.

OK, hit us with the evidence. Do what no ID proponent has ever done, hit us with the evidence.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Ah, here it comes. The demand for INFINITE DETAIL while providing exactly ZERO of his own.

Well, isnt that a prediction of the ToE, that these transitional fossils should be encountered ? If they were not, why do proponents of evolution not change their mind ? maybe, because their position is not scientific, but rather religious after all ? What evidence would you accept that the ToE is false ? A cambrian rabbit ?

Michael Denton stated:

“It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today

anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach stated:

“ Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted,

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

Quote

Fossilization is extremely rare and gets even more rare the farther back in time you go. Why do you IDiots think we should have a complete fossil record for events and creatures that existed around a billion years ago?

Does the ToE also predict that we should find non-permineralized fossils, and collagen, and proteins preserved in fossils ? And carbon through C14 dating methods ? And if we find such things, is it not obvious and indicative that the dating methods are all bollocks, and fossils are rather young ?? Does that evidence not add to all the other, and provide a BIG blow to deep time nonsense assertions ?

The usual argument from personal incredulity. "Gee, this is so complex I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore it must be designed". Before you bore us even more do you have anything not based on your own ignorance or personal incredulity? Any positive evidence for ID at all?

Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far. So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life. What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer. You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.

It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.

When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.

This kind of arguments are frequent :

how can a perfect deity create such a messed up world? (translation: it is inconceivable that a perfect deity could create such a messed up world, therefore, since evolution is a theory of messed-up, random natural forces and actions, it must be true) how can (a certain part of a living organism, e.g., the human eye) be designed when it has this mistake or that problem? (translation: it is inconceivable that an intelligent divine designer could create that supposedly malfunctioning part of the living organism; therefore it must have been formed through random, unintelligent, natural forces, i.e. evolution)

All of these arguments could be accurately classed as arguments of incredulity. If no reason is given, any argument from incredulity is weak.

When a person accuses opposing arguments ofincredulity when they are actually guilty of it themselves, (disbelieving andbeing skeptical of what is true and repeatedly proven) and they make attemptsto evade the current evidence and observation instead of dealing with allegedevidence by refuting it and acknowledging that it exists.IOW, my argument is not in disbelieving what is objectively factual, it isactually your argument that is doing this in the face of what we DO observe.

We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence. We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems. To quote Quastler again, "The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity."2 Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity or information are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence—intelligent design—played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer—based on our knowledge of

established cause-and-effect relationships—that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.

For this reason, the design inference defended here does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge. To establish an explanation as best, a historical scientist must cite positive evidence for the causal adequacy of a proposed cause. Indeed, unlike an argument from ignorance, an inference to the best explanation does not assert the adequacy of one causal explanation merely on the basis of the inadequacy of some other causal explanation. Instead, it asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.

I am always keen to learn. It depends however, from who, and if i regard the information given as trust worthy, and the inferences drawn of the evidence compelling.

The same question goes to you. Are you willing to permit the evidence to lead wherever it is ? Even if it is towards the oposit direction that you wish ?

Define a trustworthy source? Do you consider Nature trustworthy? You must since you used it.

Let me ask you a question. Name one ancestor in the maternal line from between 60 and 100 generation prior to yourself. If you can't, then how do you know you are human?

I guess we can be happy that you didn't cut and paste the entire FORUM POST. Tell, us, what is the nature article that is referred to in that post? Have you read it? Or is "Admin" a trustworthy source? If so, why?

Please explain, in your own words, how this article supports an ID inference.

OK, hit us with the evidence. Do what no ID proponent has ever done, hit us with the evidence.

[/quote]Or is "Admin" a trustworthy source? If so, why?[/quote]

Just to clarify, i am the Admin of reasonandscience, which is my personal virtual library.

Ah, here it comes. The demand for INFINITE DETAIL while providing exactly ZERO of his own.

Well, isnt that a prediction of the ToE, that these transitional fossils should be encountered ?

Science has hundreds of well documented transitional sequences in the fossil record, far more than enough to confirm macroevolution. Only an IDiot would demand that every last fossil in every last lineage be discovered.

(snip the Creationist IDiot quotes, the blatant quote-mining of Gould, the same stupid YEC PRATT claims about dino soft tissue and C-14 dating)

Do you have anything to add besides the usual ID-Creationist C&Ped stupidity?

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

I thought how much brainpower was required to program and make these robots. In the natural world , according to proponents of naturalism, the required coordination and invention of new limbs was due just to random natural processes. That made me have a closer look what mainstream scientific papers have to say about the subject. How did the first limbs of tetrapods emerge ? What mechanism is required to grow body parts like legs, and how do proponents of evolution explain the arise of tetrapods ?

According to proponents of evolution, tetrapods arose from a lineage of fish. This kind of dramatic change over time is called macroevolution. The transition from life in water to life on land would have necessitated dramatic structural changes of the whole body to withstand the increased effects of gravity, amongst other new requirements. Many aspects of tetrapod origins remain elusive. Its supposed evolution has generated great interest, but the earliest phases of their history are poorly understood. Recent studies have questioned long-accepted hypotheses about the origin of the pentadactyl limb, the phylogeny of tetrapods and the environment in which the first tetrapods lived.The ‘earliest’ known tetrapods with feet and legs are now thought to have been aquatic animals; proponents of evolution therefore argue that feet and legs evolved in a shallow water environment and were only later co-opted for use on the land.

Most discussions of the topic concentrate to elucidate if the fossil record permits to find transitional forms that permit infer a water to land transition. Not only are there hudge gaps, but the idea bears big problems conceptually, and as a whole.

Moreover, as Behe explained nicely : In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as the arise of tetrapods must include how the transition occurred on a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

So rather than stick to anatomy comparisons of fossils that might bear some similarity that could be interpreted as intermediates and evolution of tetrapod limbs from fish fins , let us try to elucidate how significant the functional and morphological shift was it in terms of the underlying genetic mechanisms . The fossil record provides insight into supposed morphological changes. However, to understand the underlying mechanisms, we must peer into the gene regulatory networks of living vertebrates.

Do new anatomical structures arise de novo, or do they evolve from pre-existing structures? Advances in developmental genetics, palaeontology and evolutionary developmental biology have recently supposedly shed light on the origins of the structures that most intrigued Charles Darwin, including tetrapod limbs. According to proponents of evolution, structures arose by the modification of pre-existing genetic regulatory circuits.

The genetic program instructs how to make new structures, but that program must be precisely programmed, and the genetic regulatory circuits need also to be programmed . That is, two separate programs need to emerge, that is 1. the program which defines the physical form and structure, and 2. the program which instructs where to find the genetic information in the genome, and when to express is during development, that is in the right sequence. That are different layers of information, which must exist fully developed in order to make the new anatomical parts in question.

The instructions that control when and where a gene is expressed are written in the sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene. These instructions are written in a language that is often called the ‘gene regulatory code’. This code is read and interpreted by proteins called transcription factors that bind to specific sequences of DNA (or ‘DNA words’) and increase or decrease gene expression. Changes in gene expression between species could therefore be due to changes in the transcription factors and/or changes in the instructions within the regulatory regions of specific genes.

In order for communication to happen, 1. The sequence of DNA bases located in the regulatory region of the gene is required , and 2. transcription factors that read the code. If one of both is missing, communication fails, the gene that has to be expressed, cannot be encountered, and the whole procedure of gene expression fails. This is a irreducible complex system. The gene regulatory code could not arise in a step-wise manner either, since if that were the case, the code has only the right significance if fully developed. Thats a example par excellence of intelligent design.

During vertebrate limb development, Hoxd genes are transcribed in two temporal phases; an early wave controls growth and polarity up to the forearm and a late wave patterns the digits. In this issue of Developmental Cell, Tarchini and Duboule (2006) report that two opposite regulatory modules direct early collinear expression of Hoxd genes.

Question : how could natural mechanisms have programmed and directed the right temporal phases of gene transcription of the right genes, and early wave control ? Furthermore, the limbs develop at the right place, the right coordinates and positional information is required, they could develop anywhere on the body. Did natural mechanisms find out about the right place by trial and error ? There were myriads of positions possible to add the limb. How could the right and precise coordination of axial position be achieved by mutations ?

The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort them all out. Natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Mutation and natural selection could theoretically form a new complex morphological feature like a leg or a limb with the right size and form , and arrange to find out the right body location to grow them , but it could also produce all kinds of other new body forms, and grow and attach them anywhere on the body, most of which have no biological advantage or are most probably deleterious to the organism. Natural mechanisms have no constraints, they could produce any kind of novelty. Its however that kind of freedom that makes it extremely unlikely that mere natural developments provide new specific evolutionary arrangements that are advantageous to the organism. Nature would have to arrange almost a infinite number of trials and errors until getting a new positive arrangement. Since that would become a highly unlikely event, design is a better explanation.

Going over through several mainstream scientific papers, i have not come across one of them, that were able to provide a detailed description how exactly the morphological transition could have occurred through evolution.

Some biologists have also envisioned special mutations in regulatory homeobox or "Hox" genes, where simple mutations might be able to make large developmental changes in an organism which might case a radically different phenotype. However, manipulating "Hox" genes does little to solve the problem of generating novel functional biostructures, for making large changes in phenotype are rarely beneficial. Hox gene mutations may be a more simple mechanism for generating large change, but they also do not escape the problem of the "hopeful monster":"The drawback for scientists is that nature's shrewd economy conceals enormous complexity. Researchers are finding evidence that the Hox genes and the non-Hox homeobox genes are not independent agents but members of vast genetic networks that connect hundreds, perhaps thousands, of other genes. Change one component, and myriad others will change as well--and not necessarily for the better. Thus dreams of tinkering with nature's toolbox to bring to life what scientists call a "hopeful monster"- such as a fish with feet--are likely to remain elusive."Furthermore, many biologists forget when invoking Hox gene mutations that Hox genes can only re-arrange parts which are already there--they cannot create truly novel structures.

Casey Luskin : Hox mutations will never create new "body part genes", and thus cannot add truly new phenotypic functions into the genome, and at best we are left with the quandaries associated with "pre-adaptation". The majority of evolutionary change must take place through evolving new "body part genes", which Hox mutations cannot do. One reviewer in Nature recognizes this fact:"Schwartz ignores the fact that homeobox genes are selector genes. They can do nothing if the genes regulated by them are not there. It is these genes that specify in detail the adaptive structure of the organs. To be sure, turning on a homeobox gene at the wrong place can result in the appearance of an ectopic organ, but only if the genes for that organ are present in the same individual. It is totally wrong to imply that an eye could be produced by a macromutation when no eye was ever present in the lineage before.

Just to clarify, i am the Admin of reasonandscience, which is my personal virtual library.

I had a quick look through it. Seems like you collected every last Creationist/IDiot bit of anti-science nonsense and outright lies posted on the web in the last decade. It's the mother of all PRATT lists. Heck, I bet it would even make the YEC C&P King Philip Cunningham (batshit77) envious.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Science has hundreds of well documented transitional sequences in the fossil record, far more than enough to confirm macroevolution.

I don't think so.

“In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geologyhttp://www.fredheeren.com/boston.....ton.htm

The following quote is part of a personal letter from Colin Patterson to Luther Sunderland:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. . .I will lay it on the line, There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument."

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History. The quote is from a personal letter dated 10th April 1979 from Dr. Patterson to creationist Luther D. Sunderland and is referring to Dr. Patterson's book "Evolution" (1978, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.).

"The more one studies palaeontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which it is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion."

[QUOTE][(snip the Creationist IDiot quotes, the blatant quote-mining of Gould, the same stupid YEC PRATT claims about dino soft tissue and C-14 dating)/QUOTE]

If soft tissue and non permineralized fossils, beside carbon C14 dating is not evidence for young fossils, then i don't know what is.....

Beside this :

The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level

In order to say that some function is understood, every relevant step in the process must be elucidated. The relevant steps in biological processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of a biological phenomenon such as sight, or digestion, or immunity, must include a molecular explanation. It is no longer sufficient, now that the black box of vision has been opened, for an ‘evolutionary explanation’ of that power to invoke only the anatomical structures of whole eyes, as Darwin did in the 19th century and as most popularizers of evolution continue to do today. Anatomy is, quite simply, irrelevant. So is the fossil record. It does not matter whether or not the fossil record is consistent with evolutionary theory, any more than it mattered in physics that Newton’s theory was consistent with everyday experience. The fossil record has nothing to tell us about, say, whether or how the interactions of 11-cis-retinal with rhodopsin, transducin, and phosphodiesterase could have developed step-by-step. Neither do the patterns of biogeography matter, or of population genetics, or the explanations that evolutionary theory has given for rudimentary organs or species abundance.

The point which Professor Behe makes for vision applies equally to macroevolution as a whole. The relevant steps in macroevolutionary processes occur ultimately at the molecular level, so a satisfactory explanation of macroevolution must include a molecular explanation.

If, for some reason, certain macroevolutionary transitions appear to be highly improbable from a chemical standpoint, then that in itself is a good reason to be skeptical of the view that Darwin’s theory of evolution is an all-inclusive theory of biology.

Macroevolution has also been defined by Professor Jerry Coyne as “large changes in body form or the evolution of one type of plant or animal from another type”

Evolutionary change occurs on different scales: ‘microevolution’ is generally equated with events at or below the species level whereas ‘macroevolution’ is change above the species level, including the formation of species.

In nature, evolution occurs at the molecular level of specific, individual mutations, so it is there we must look to evaluate possible evolutionary paths. Studies with less detail can say very little on the topic.

Behe, Darwins Black Box, pg.38: Other ages have been unable to answer many questions that interested them. Furthermore, because we can't yet evaluate the question of eye evolution or beetle evolution does not mean we can't evaluate Darwinism's claims for any biological structure. When we descend from the level of a whole animal (such as a beetle) or whole organ (such as an eye) to the molecular level, then in many cases we can make a judgment on evolution because all of the parts of many discrete molecular systems are known.

Oh and Otangelo, you can knock off the CopyPasta-fest. No one and I do mean no one is interested in reading mountains of steaming bullshit from IDiots like Behe and Luskin.

Pick one narrow topic, argue it in your own words. Support your argument with evidence from the primary scientific literature, not quote-mines and unsupported over-the-top claims from ID-Creationists crap sites.

Think you can manage that?

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Rather than simply copy others say, i mostly educate myself in regard of how specially molecular biological systems work through mainstream books like Molecular biology of the cell, of Bruce Alberts, and from there on infer what best explains their origins.

Science has hundreds of well documented transitional sequences in the fossil record, far more than enough to confirm macroevolution.

I don't think so.

No one gives a shit what you think. The transitional fossils sequences exist and all the C&Ped quote-mined quotes and IDiot denials in the world won't change that. If you don't have a better explanation for the physical evidence you've got nothing.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Oh and Otangelo, you can knock off the CopyPasta-fest. No one and I do mean no one is interested in reading mountains of steaming bullshit from IDiots like Behe and Luskin.

Pick one narrow topic, argue it in your own words. Support your argument with evidence from the primary scientific literature, not quote-mines and unsupported over-the-top claims from ID-Creationists crap sites.

Think you can manage that?

I copy from my library, and i copy what i elaborated and inferred from the scientific evidence i am encountering .......

1. Similarities does not support evolution. It does prove they look similar.Similarities has nothing to do with evolution, because it does not prove they came from a the same biological descendant. Because they look similar means they look similar, it does not mean they evolved from simpler life forms.

2. The very fossil evidence that you claim as an evidence in support of evolution in fact defies lending a support. palentologists say that not a single fossil supports the evolution of a single species. Only three prominent sequences. (!) whale (2) horse (3) elephant are said to have been verified through fossils. But each of these sequences have been seriously questioned in literature. The fossils DO NOT SHOW a nearly continous gradation of change over long span of years. but fully developed organisms appear in the fossils entirely discrete and unique with minimal links. No explanations to the mechanism behind the morphological changes that are needed to convert a land trotting mammal to a LIVING SUBMARINE-LIKE WHALE. Questions are galore that the theory of evolution cannot answer or even explain with suiffcient evidence.

Oh and Otangelo, you can knock off the CopyPasta-fest. No one and I do mean no one is interested in reading mountains of steaming bullshit from IDiots like Behe and Luskin.

Pick one narrow topic, argue it in your own words. Support your argument with evidence from the primary scientific literature, not quote-mines and unsupported over-the-top claims from ID-Creationists crap sites.

Think you can manage that?

I copy from my library, and i copy what i elaborated and inferred from the scientific evidence i am encountering .......

I take it your answer is no, you can't manage a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature.

What a surprise.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

Well, isnt that a prediction of the ToE, that these transitional fossils should be encountered ? If they were not, why do proponents of evolution not change their mind ? maybe, because their position is not scientific, but rather religious after all ? What evidence would you accept that the ToE is false ? A cambrian rabbit ?

Actually, they have been found. Quite a bit of them. But you won't find that in creationist literature.

Of course, one thing that evolution does do, is make predictions. For example, the location, time period, and type of fossils that might be found there. Which, not only has been done dozens of times, but there are some excellent stories written for the casual writer... for example, Shubin's "Your Inner Fish".

Name a time when ID or creationism was used to predict the location, time period, and type of fossil.

Quote

Michael Denton stated:

“It is still, as it was in Darwin's day, overwhelmingly true that the first representatives of all the major classes of organisms known to biology are already highly characteristic of their class when they make their initial appearance in the fossil record. This phenomenon is particularly obvious in the case of the invertebrate fossil record. At its first appearance in the ancient paleozoic seas, invertebrate life was already divided into practically all the major groups with which we are familiar today

Oh good. Argument by authority. Sadly, I disagree with Denton. Just out of curiosity, do you refer to biochemists for all your paleontology research?

Anyway. This thinking is completely backward. All the major groups were invented by Linneaus and, as far as I'm concerned, is a terrible idea. It's like we have defined styles of cars now, but now we have to try and fit the Cugnot Steam Trolley into our modern classification system. Is it an F1, SUV, sedan?

Quote

anthropologist Edmund Ronald Leach stated:

“ Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so

What the hell does Darwin have to do with anything?

Here's a hint, there's been 150 years of progress, with tens of thousands of papers published every year on evolution, abiogenesis, paleontology, molecular genetics, etc. All of which confirm evolution. None of which support any notion of ID. These papers are as far beyond Darwin could even imagine as my cell phone is to a Victorian detective.

Quote

One of the most famous proponents of evolution was the late Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould. But Gould admitted,

"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life’s history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection, we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

Seriously? Your going to use one of the world's most famous evolutionary biologists and paleontologists to attack evolution. The guy who literally wrote the book on it?

You aren't too bright are you?

Of course, you might continue with the rest of the quote. I hate quoteminers and you seem to be doing a smashing job so far.

The rest of the quote

Quote

Darwin's argument still persists as the favored escape of most paleontologists from the embarrassment of a record that seems to show so little of evolution [directly]. In exposing its cultural and methodological roots, I wish in no way to impugn the potential validity of gradualism (for all general views have similar roots). I only wish to point out that it is never "seen" in the rocks.

Paleontologists have paid an exorbitant price for Darwin's argument. We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study.

For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution to this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning [1]. The modern theory of evolution does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record. [It is gradualism we should reject, not Darwinism.]

Quote

In a 1977 paper titled "The Return of Hopeful Monsters", Gould wrote:

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt.

Again, another quote mine. You might want to continue the quote...

Quote

But all theories of discontinuous change are not anti-Darwinian, as Huxley pointed out nearly 120 years ago. Suppose that a discontinuous change in adult form arises from a small genetic alteration. Problems of discordance with other members of the species do not arise, and the large, favorable variant can spread through a population in Darwinian fashion. Suppose also that this large change does not produce a perfected form all at once, but rather serves as a "key" adaptation to shift its possessor toward a new mode of life. Continued success in this new mode may require a large set of collateral alterations, morphological and behavioral; these may arise by a more traditional, gradual route once the key adaptation forces a profound shift in selective pressures.

Quote

Quote

Fossilization is extremely rare and gets even more rare the farther back in time you go. Why do you IDiots think we should have a complete fossil record for events and creatures that existed around a billion years ago?

Does the ToE also predict that we should find non-permineralized fossils, and collagen, and proteins preserved in fossils ? And carbon through C14 dating methods ? And if we find such things, is it not obvious and indicative that the dating methods are all bollocks, and fossils are rather young ?? Does that evidence not add to all the other, and provide a BIG blow to deep time nonsense assertions ?

The usual argument from personal incredulity. "Gee, this is so complex I can't imagine how it evolved, therefore it must be designed". Before you bore us even more do you have anything not based on your own ignorance or personal incredulity? Any positive evidence for ID at all?

Incredulity is based on human experience and on what we actually know. For example, the belief in abiogenesis can be strongly doubted, one can be skeptical of it, because it has never been observed and all proposals have lead to a dead end so far.

Wrong. Abiogenesis is an extremely well studied subject. One in which every single molecule and system needed for life has been observed to occur without an intelligent agent given the right conditions.

Of course, I'll just add, how hypocritical of you this particular thing is... since you demand life from scratch, yet have utterly failed to even begin to support the idea of ID.

Here's a hint. Even if you were to prove evolution 100% totally wrong, right now... it still doesn't make ID true. Only positive supporting evidence can do that and you don't have any. I know that because if you did, you would have published it and have gotten the Nobel prize.

BTW: Are you also GIBHOR, banned from the international skeptics forum? If not, then you are plagiarizing him and that's not right either.

Are you also GodExists, banned from the thethinkingatheist forum? If not, then you are plagiarizing him too.

Quote

So its more than rational to look somewhere else. What has been observed is biogenesis, life coming from life.

That's true. But that has nothing to do with before there was life on Earth does it? We know that there a period with no life. And we know there was a period with life. We know that a large variety of chemical reactions results in concentrations of chemicals that can self-assemble into complex long chain structures, that even have the ability to self-reproduce.

What's your explanation and what is the evidence for it.

Just because something is complex doesn't mean it needs a designer. That's an anthropomorphic assumption on your part and it's a false assumption that you are NOT THINKING CRITICALLY about.

Quote

What we know is that the complexity in the natural world of living organisms is similar to, in fact much greater than, the complexity of intelligently created devices, such as the clock or the computer.

You might implie that incredulity is an unreasonable position, but it is in fact a foundation for all critical thought. Sensible people do not believe things without evidence. Consider the opposite, credulity; there is no context in which that is not a pejorative word! Considering what atheists are willing to believe, can indeed be classed as credulous.

You are absolutely correct. SO, provide the evidence for your claims that ID is valid. We're all waiting.

So far, I've shown that your claims are very much not correct. Therefore, you claims about evolution are not valid. This is supported by evidence (ignoring the actual fossil record, purposefully misquoting people, etc).

Quote

It is also quite proper for a person of one religion or philosophy to be skeptical of the beliefs of another one. The religion of naturalism, which is the basis of evolution, can properly be rejected by a biblical theist. The evolutionist system may be dominant in some parts of the world, but that says nothing about whether it is true. Many have looked at it and found it inadequate; they have found good reasons to be skeptical of it, especially since theism better explains very many features of the natural world.

You can reject naturalism all you want. Hypocrite.

But if you do, then you should be living in a cave, eating carrion and rotten fruit. But you aren't. You're enjoying the results of all that naturalistic thinking all the while complaining about it.

Quote

When i say that something is unbelievable or inconceivable, i give good reasons. If my whole argument were simply an unsupported statement of unbelief, you would have a good point; to say something is unbelievable without giving a reason is not a good argument. But the problem is that you oversimplify; you do not address the reasons for incredulity.

Incredulity is an argument of scepticism about a certain point of view, and the evolutionist and atheist are not innocent of using such an argument. Incredulity, doubt and scepticism about God and special creation, are implicit in every naturalistic explanation about abiogenesis and many other facets of their view points.

Great. Provide the evidence that god exists and I will accept him. But it'll take a lot of evidence.

SNIP

Here's the deal. No one here cares about your god. And, if you use god as a basis for your science, then it can never be taught in a school. Thanks for that own goal, BTW/

Quote

We also know from broad and repeated experience that intelligent agents can and do produce information-rich systems: we have positive experience-based knowledge of a cause that is sufficient to generate new specified information, namely, intelligence.

So what?

Quote

We are not ignorant of how information arises. We know from experience that conscious intelligent agents can create informational sequences and systems.

So what?

Quote

To quote Quastler again, "The creation of new information is habitually associated with conscious activity."

But not ALL the time and that's where the entire argument fails.

Quote

Experience teaches that whenever large amounts of specified complexity

Define this term. Use math.

Quote

or information

Define this term. Use math.

Quote

are present in an artifact or entity whose causal story is known, invariably creative intelligence—intelligent design—played a role in the origin of that entity. Thus, when we encounter such information in the large biological molecules needed for life, we may infer—based on our knowledge of established cause-and-effect relationships—that an intelligent cause operated in the past to produce the specified information necessary to the origin of life.

And that's the leap that cause the entire argument to fail.

Just because intelligence CAN do so, doesn't mean that intelligence is REQUIRED to do so.

Further we need evidence that an intelligence CAN do so is required, because no known intelligence can do that.

Quote

For this reason, the design inference defended here does not constitute an argument from ignorance. Instead, it constitutes an "inference to the best explanation" based upon our best available knowledge. To establish an explanation as best, a historical scientist must cite positive evidence for the causal adequacy of a proposed cause. Indeed, unlike an argument from ignorance, an inference to the best explanation does not assert the adequacy of one causal explanation merely on the basis of the inadequacy of some other causal explanation. Instead, it asserts the superior explanatory power of a proposed cause based upon its proven—its known—causal adequacy and based upon a lack of demonstrated efficacy among the competing proposed causes.

And it's all so much bullshit.

But thanks for recycling an argument that has been defunct for over a century now.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

Oh and Otangelo, you can knock off the CopyPasta-fest. No one and I do mean no one is interested in reading mountains of steaming bullshit from IDiots like Behe and Luskin.

Pick one narrow topic, argue it in your own words. Support your argument with evidence from the primary scientific literature, not quote-mines and unsupported over-the-top claims from ID-Creationists crap sites.

Think you can manage that?

I copy from my library, and i copy what i elaborated and inferred from the scientific evidence i am encountering .......

I take it your answer is no, you can't manage a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature.

What a surprise. ;)

Quote

I take it your answer is no, you can't manage a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature.

1. Similarities does not support evolution. It does prove they look similar.Similarities has nothing to do with evolution, because it does not prove they came from a the same biological descendant. Because they look similar means they look similar, it does not mean they evolved from simpler life forms.

The morphological similarities combined with the physical /temporal distribution of the fossils create a distinct phylogenetic tree. This same phylogenetic tree also emerges from the genetic record of extant animals. Taken together they're conclusive evidence for macroevolution over deep time.

Quote

2. The very fossil evidence that you claim as an evidence in support of evolution in fact defies lending a support. palentologists say that not a single fossil supports the evolution of a single species. Only three prominent sequences. (!) whale (2) horse (3) elephant are said to have been verified through fossils. But each of these sequences have been seriously questioned in literature.

What a crock. We've got sequences for the sirenians, and for the giraffidae, and felidae, and canidae, and dozens of other well known families. Your credibility is zero.

Quote

The fossils DO NOT SHOW a nearly continous gradation of change over long span of years. but fully developed organisms appear in the fossils entirely discrete and unique with minimal links.

(facepalm) what would a half-developed animal look like?

Quote

No explanations to the mechanism behind the morphological changes that are needed to convert a land trotting mammal to a LIVING SUBMARINE-LIKE WHALE.

Of course we know of the evolutionary mechanisms and have even mapped most of the major genetic changes. Where are you getting this nonsense?

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD

That you can't manage a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature?

That's easy enough. I'll just wait here while you sputter and bluster and C&P more Creationist crap without ever once making a coherent argument with support from the primary scientific literature. You'll demonstrate for me.

--------------"Science is what got us to the humble place we’re at, and what hard-won progress we might realize comes from science, with ID completely flaccid, religious apologetics bitching from the sidelines." - Eigenstate at UD